From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Tobias Geerinckx-Rice Subject: Re: How should ambiguous package specifications be handled? Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2020 10:26:48 +0100 Message-ID: <87r1zqmskn.fsf@nckx> References: <87k15ippk9.fsf@cbaines.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg=pgp-sha512; protocol="application/pgp-signature" Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:57773) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1iuYlI-0003UZ-HQ for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 23 Jan 2020 04:26:53 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1iuYlH-0001CZ-2U for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 23 Jan 2020 04:26:51 -0500 Received: from tobias.gr ([2001:470:7405::1]:41960) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1iuYlG-00019j-MJ for guix-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 23 Jan 2020 04:26:51 -0500 Received: by tobias.gr (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTP id 5fe40267 for ; Thu, 23 Jan 2020 09:26:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: by submission.tobias.gr (OpenSMTPD) with ESMTPSA id e793ad8b (TLSv1.3:TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256:NO) for ; Thu, 23 Jan 2020 09:26:47 +0000 (UTC) In-reply-to: <87k15ippk9.fsf@cbaines.net> List-Id: "Development of GNU Guix and the GNU System distribution." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-devel-bounces+gcggd-guix-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-devel" To: guix-devel@gnu.org --=-=-= Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Christopher, Christopher Baines =E5=86=99=E9=81=93=EF=BC=9A > We've had one for a while (itstool 2.0.6), and another has=20 > recently been > introduced (sassc 3.6.1). Thanks for noticing this! The sassc variant being visible was definitely a mistake. I added=20 it as a local variable first and forgot to hide it after changing=20 my mind. This is now fixed. > Given there do seem to be ways of avoiding these ambiguous=20 > package > specifications, would it be helpful to have a lint warning that > identifies a package as being ambiguous (as it shares the name=20 > and > version with another package)? That's a good idea at the very least. I don't think such=20 duplication is ever justified. Kind regards, T G-R --=-=-= Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- iQIzBAEBCgAdFiEEfo+u0AlEeO9y5k0W2Imw8BjFSTwFAl4pZtgACgkQ2Imw8BjF STyNCA/+JfdIi5uUsdXuM+Q9HrsOso0blZFubuUBqKoffS7JXhQvzAGpmAgRilG0 gTQ8whp9Y3+F4ZZYKtckO6atoaXBTjJhaFM2DXWRpTqEJM5hpre8BcqzsorQO6WG wD93Wfsv926BqLbtfug+9QKnNrzpMiBlEx3hbU0k1KPXLw4vPM06JIndkXuIfGlF X6mrz5E2wWTtjVYAZ3COzH51LM06TZ+Fb6kUK/BNI9L4Rxcdnus3H7/AiEioNuuF vMpy11d8e05SIwOwevwGud8UmOqcgPiLEtZUlmrSTIl6K62ykb8WcHEkTyjFE1xn p3qqT/pCk7x0SpFKm0M8IEvJPT5QCro+zg8Am5fXD3P8PgLHEc+DlG46HIIsjnvR wG4TR6i+IzN8QsoN5kT/2+smC797uyYc4aGwqGK2/qAvCTeVSnHuyZJlpvGYa+L3 Cr0TCWJqSHgChCraX/HVMBxN4D7pZnxiWXARk7rhqfeNGVnAXjZ0i2hp40kKC+Wr u3yDZh/Bf3reeRCWdeMVb2NfzskRgu9hUvFit0z5qO95QK8Imgk7CVM3A0F5/6+1 /xiE7v1VmdLQompu2hgcKHifBikCtsCzp8hy9QpoiB3oo0/syQaysvQycPXjv/iq 1b8j8BOuCsDwlxkyp0hgAdoD/Hb00sEhkUEW97ejmefhkzT1L2s= =ZVJM -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --=-=-=--